A gay couple, married in Massachusettes came into this guys bakery and asked him to bake a cake for their wedding.

Phillips declined on the grounds that it went against his personal beliefs.

So... we have one instance (The NFL) where it is fine for them to do whatever they want while at work... but not Philips.

If you click on the link inside of this article where the news agency gives their take. They specifically states paraphrased, "You can swing your arm up until it gets to the end of another persons nose.

The gay couple has the right to exercise their freedoms up until they demand another violate theirs. This should be cut and dry.

But it comes back to a fundamental value... when does it stop being OK for one to demand another act a certain way?

Now, the difference between the two (NFL and the baker)

The NFL has very strict laws and contractually each player signs documents which state what they can and cannot do.The NFL can tell players not to protest. Afterall, they would not allow the players to wear shoes which had 'remember 9/11' on them.And the Houston oilers could not wear insignias which protested the death of 5 Houston police. No fuss was raised for these.

The anthem protest is the same.

In the case of the baker though, we are talking his first amendment right to NOT do something. Every business in the US has a sign up which states their legal right to refuse service to anyone for anything.

They have a right to refuse and the gay couple has the right to refuse to do business with them in the future.

Regardless of the outcome of this decision, this bakery will never know business like they did before simply because by exercising his beliefs, a lot of former customers are going to refuse to go to him anymore. I guarantee you none of the death threats stated, "And oh by the way... is my cake gonna be ready for this Friday???".

Where I can put forth a case that the NFL and the bakery should be seen as separate... I would be quite alright with both being allowed to have their right honored.

And their customers have the right to refuse to give them business anymore... that is how it should work.

_________________"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticize" - Voltaire

Its against his religious belief to bake a cake?? I dont remember anywhere in the bible where it states "thou shall not provide pastry for those in sin". And what if the baker was a white supremacist and decided to refuse to bake a cake for a black couple getting married because it went against his philosophical belief? What is it about religious belief that trumps philosophical belief? The threat of some God that has never been proven to even exist? This is just stupid. He provides a public service. He should be required to provide that service to anyone regardless of race or sexual orientation.

Last edited by VixensVengeance on Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:47 am; edited 1 time in total

First, it is not about baking a cake, but making something with his skills for their wedding. As he states, he has sold many cakes to many people. His mistake was not telling them he would sell them a cake, he just would not decorate it as they liked.

It is a contractual agreement he refused to enter into based on his beliefs.

What beliefs do you hold that are inviolate? Would you be OK with someone demanding you do something against them?

And also to be clear, he is going to get your responses from others because of the stance he took, and he's gonna hurt due to it.

Me personally, I think if he is going to take this type of stance, he needed to open shop in a better location.

My biggest issue here is that both sides are wrong.

The couple have stated this is bigger then them, they wanted this fight.And he did not tell them he would sell them a cake. He should have said that he would not make a cake specific to their wedding but they were welcome to any other cake they wanted.

And finally... it upsets me to no end that this is in front of the supreme court. A cake.People would rather waste millions of dollars to be seen as right then to act like men and come to terms over the issue.

Their is no victory here... only degrees of loss and we get a box seat to see who looses the most.

Finally, I get you do not agree with religion. You have no right to tell another how they should believe. Neither of these groups should either.

In my opinion the Supreme court should get these parties in there... jump seriously down their throats, force them to come to terms between themselves... then vacate everything else and make a ruling stating that such stupid things should be handled like mature adults and friviolity like this should be stopped in its tracks.

_________________"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticize" - Voltaire

If this person was a painter that painted beautiful canvases and hung them in a gallery for sale but if a black person came in to buy one and was refused the purchase because of the color of his skin would you take exception in that case? I would and I see the decoration of a cake as no different.

It is not a matter of moving his gallery to a "better location". I'm not sure what that even means. Are you advocating white only (hetero only) business centers? I don't think its wrong to demand fair treatment, no matter race or sex, for publicity offered goods and services. If the guy wants to hold private auctions, then let him do that all day long but if hes going to offer publically, that means ALL public.

These are volatile hot point buttons and people are not reasonable. My opinion on religion aside its a fair statement that people of faith do hold irrational positions and because of that are quite radical in those positions so reasonable discourse is often times to much to hope for. This is the reason for our court system. Its doing its job in deciding issues of church and state in this manner.

VixensVengeance wrote:If this person was a painter that painted beautiful canvases and hung them in a gallery for sale but if a black person came in to buy one and was refused the purchase because of the color of his skin would you take exception in that case? I would and I see the decoration of a cake as no different.

It is not a matter of moving his gallery to a "better location". I'm not sure what that even means. Are you advocating white only (hetero only) business centers? I don't think its wrong to demand fair treatment, no matter race or sex, for publicity offered goods and services.

These are volatile hot point buttons and people are not reasonable. My opinion on religion aside its a fair statement that people of faith do hold irrational positions and because of that are quite radical in those positions so reasonable discourse is often times to much to hope for. This is the reason for our court system. Its doing its job in deciding issues of church and state in this manner.

By bringing in race though, you are clouding the matter.

The bible is very clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. There are parts which do talk about inter-racial marriage, but that is jewish in nature and long since abandoned with the 5th covenant. So bringing up race makes no sense.

And I have black in my family so I would not anyways.

When I said better location, I meant opening in a place which was more conducive to the type of business he was running. A more religious city like Salt Lake Utah for example or closer, Colorado Springs.

I see that you advocate for fair treatment for everyone. The problem that you have is what is fair?

Lets try this.

I demand you go back to your X because you entered into an agreement with him.

You will look at that and think it preposterous. And yet this is what you argue for. That the cake baker must be forced to agree to the couples terms regardless of his beliefs.

I cannot force you to do something because I see it a certain way. And lets be honest... even the suggestion of it makes you look at me differently doesn't it? You do not think its fair at all.

But this is what is being asked.

It is not fair to force someone to do something against their will.

And like I said, he will pay for what he did. He recognized that when he refused... or is an ignorant fool otherwise.

If the cake baker looses, then we have to ask ourselves when are we done forcing others to do what is against their beliefs?

Should you be forced back into a loveless marriage because you entered into an agreement?I did it twice so would be quite the hypocrite... AND YET this is what we will have to ask ourselves.

I don't like to see anyone get hurt, the reality of this fight is... both want it. I would rather someone not be forced to do something then for someone else to go to another baker to get their cake (as they did.)

Of note... about this time, my Republican governor was refused service here in New Mexico because she was against gay marriage and the hair stylist was gay.

That hair stylist no longer works in the area... not because the government shut him down. But because he lost business due to it. Martinez simply got another hairdresser.

My number 1 issue with this is that it ever went to court in the first place.Afterwards, either you or I will be wrong. And the fact of the matter is that legislating society never works out well.

People need to be allowed to have different beliefs. It is how life evolves.I see the time when religion will have to be more accepting of the homosexual lifestyle.But to be forced to do it is not ever going to work out well.

The fact is, one way or the other, this will harm society.

_________________"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticize" - Voltaire

The example you site is an equivocation. They are not the same. In fact the baker refused to ever enter into an agreement in the first place based on sexual orientation. As for my agreement for marriage, that is a contract set forth under the govt with certain stipulations, namely that either party or both can sue for the dissolution of that contract based on certain criteria.

Consider the contract you enter into with an employer. While under that employ you have agreed to certain restrictions, namely things like dress code, or that you wont download porn on company owned computers and the like. If I go to work in a bikini they have the right to terminate that contract and at any time I can quit because I think my boss is a dick and terminate the contract as well.

But what if you applied for that job, that contract, and were denied the right to enter into that contract because you were female or black or gay? No different than the cake guy. He has a contract for offer and he refuses certain individuals the ability to enter into that contract because they are gay. same discrimination.

Once again though, it was not about them being gay as he has sold cakes to gays many times before this. It was about his handiwork being presented at a Gay marriage. In this it is exactly like the issue with Governor Martinez.

But what I refer to in citing your experience.The beliefs are not the same... but their belief in them is.If he can be forced to bake a cake then why can't the same people force you back into your former relationship?

You would fight against that and I would agree with you.

I agree with the Hairdresser as well. He should not of been forced to do her hair and where we talk about it... the Governor is not going to throw the book at him for violating a law because if what you say is true, then he as well clearly violated the law because he discriminated against her.

And lets be honest... talking about her hair color as being wrong... I will admit I do not know women (no man ever would) but I do know the color means a lot particularly to those who are getting a little too much gray. For a guy to say such... it is the same thing. Except he demands she agree with him prior to returning to get his services... no such claim is made in the cake makers case. So I would argue this is worse.

But he didn't, neither did the cake maker.

The point I am making to you is that this case is not just about a cake maker... but the next step in a long series of events leading to something.

The goal being to remove rights from people.I am reminded of a poem based around Nazi Germany:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

- German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller

Is it only OK when it is your rights?

_________________"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticize" - Voltaire

Your still making an equivocation. I entered into a contract and then ended it based on the terms of the contract. But what if you were denied the ability to enter into a contract for marriage because you were gay? Sound familiar. They just fixed that right.

This cake guy refusing to enter into a publically offered contract is the exact same thing. Sorry but I didn't make the guy offer the public contract. He did that on his own and he should be held to fulfilling the standard of that contract no matter who takes it up as long as they are qualified to enter into it.

Sorry but the fact that he thinks his artwork is somehow representing gayness is just bullshit. How is it representing gayness? - Its representing marriage, a legally binding contract in this country for heteros and gays.

What if the person was bisexual? Would he be refused then? Are we required to disclose our sexual orientation now whenever we buy groceries? God forbid a grocery store suddenly decide they dont want their milk to represent gayness!!!

Yes but it still was not illegal to make a wedding cake in Colorado. Its not his place to decide the legality of a marriage union based on the production of a cake, only to make the cake for a viable consumer.

I find it quite hypocritical that he would sell cake to gays but just not wedding cake. I would think he consider the mere creation of a cake just as much an art form as the decorating of the cake. If he does not then he is even more wrong.

Basically hes going to hell!!

_________________If what you confront does not kill you, it will make you stronger, unless you confront an Alien. An alien will just kill you...

I look forward to reading the arguments put forth. A lot is going to rely on the timing of when certain things were said. But I think in the end my argument will be the prevailing one. We will see though

_________________"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticize" - Voltaire

I have been reading the arguments back and forth and for once I believe both are right.Conservative media states that it is a first amendment case and if Philips is ruled against would damage the first amendment irreparably.Liberal media points out that if Phillips is ruled for it will damage civil liberty irreparably.

I think they are both right.

In the past I have argued that the cake maker should have agreed to make the cake provided he was allowed to attend the wedding and be allowed to hand out cake on plates with 'Jesus is your lord and this is an abomination'.

The intent of pointing out how absurd the issue is.

Any gay person would be abhorred by such and refuse. They would justifiably be offended...

One can say Phillips is exercising his 1st amendment right, one can say he is being bigoted.

Neither of us will know truly what is in his mind except him.

What I do know is that someone who thinks to force me to do anything better put on a seatbelt. The ride is not going to be to their liking.

For me, this is what the judges should focus on... when one person is able to force another to do anything, there's a problem.

Justice Kennedy had the right idea when he pointed out that Tolerance in a free society is mandatory. As individuals we seriously need to not jump to labeling others as a bigot. Only bigots do that. (let that sink in before you move on)

Reality is... all of us are bigotted in one way or another... those who deny such are the worst for they do not even know how bigoted they are. Getting beyond that and being able to judge a person on their character is what makes us good people.

Dennis Miller put out a facebook post on the times people of the year.

Which are those who spoke out about being abused.

He noted Juanita Brodderick was not on the front page and was insulted by that... one of the most abused women ever... and was ignored.

Isn't it interesting how some are hero's for standing up to being forced to do something while others are ridiculed? I saw a whole bunch of Mr. Phillips on that cover.

I get it, its just a cake right? How many years have we heard about how bad it is that all republicans want to do is force the woman into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant... might they have been in there baking a cake?

This article voices my opinion rather well from a gay man's perspective:

Afterall... she was a porn star right? She was in an industry that she should be expected to do whoever her clients want her to do regardless of how she views things because it obviously made the guy feel bad and that is not her right...

_________________"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticize" - Voltaire

This isnt a gay issue its a disease issue. In the first place this chick had bigger issues than just a little bullying, I think, that caused her to kill herself. Secondly did she allow them to put it in her butt but not her V? (equivalent to selling a cake but not a wedding cake) I dont think she did so shes not a hypocrite. Thirdly if she were forced to do this it would be equivalent to forcing the cake shop owner to allow a man potentially infected with TB to sneeze on all his cakes. And I would disagree with that. So I dont see the correlation here in any regard?

_________________If what you confront does not kill you, it will make you stronger, unless you confront an Alien. An alien will just kill you...

So what I see you saying is that gays are more likely to be disease carrying then straight men in the porn industry?

To be clear (And before I go further, I applaud your effort to PG your response... impressive)

I think its a shame she took her life... but how much shaming did she go through to take her own life?

How many of those who did this disagree with you?

I mean agree or not, there was a fan base who gay shamed her and wanted to be able to force a gay mans P into her V.

Once again, you wish to get into her mind and state what she was thinking by stating she had other issues... But those who shamed her had no issue with forcing this and would have been happy if she had sex with the guy.

That chills me to the core that such is acceptable to any level. And this clearly shows you give a foot they take a yard. They being those who at current think gay rights should trump everything else.

And yes, they learned it from the religious types who used their religion against interracial relationships, gays even being together, etc.

We are just on the other edge of the swinging pendulum... it will go back and forth regardless of how we see things.

_________________"To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you cannot criticize" - Voltaire

Actually yes that seems to be the case that more gay men porn actors have disease than non gays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STDs_in_the_porn_industry

Just hours before her suicide she was defending the protection of her body by not choosing to engage in sex with a gay actor and then she offs her body? Somethings off there. Its not a matter of getting into her mind, just a matter of following the logic.

And you are right, gay rights is an issue but its not the paramount issue. Meaning they should NEVER have more rights than others. The pendulum swung to far in this case and anyone that bullies is an A and should have cattle prods shoved up their B's. Even if she was homophobic, (which I dont think she was) what they did was wrong.

I used to think this was a civil rights issue, but now I just think it is in poor taste for the baker to refuse the gay decoration, and in even poorer taste for the couple to try and sue someone into compliance.

Private business is private business, and if someone wants to refuse service for any reason, they should have to deal with the bad PR that comes from that, but not with legal repercussions.

_________________"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious." - C.G. Jung